People voted for term limits because for all intents and purposes, people are lazy. And, some people ran two well-funded CAMPAIGNS for term limits.
Getting rid of incumbents is not easy. The fact of the matter is, if you go member by member, I don't see a vast difference between the previous incumbents and their successors. It is the same council, with more of a sense of the expedient with BS. We get more bannings and proclamations of nothing because the current members are seeking press.
If people wanted change, I think a strong case can be made that term limits didn't bring it. I would actually make an argument that we have taken steps backward.
Let me explain to you how I see this playing out, and you can tell me if I have a profound misunderstanding...the person with the most votes win. The incumbents have an advantage because people give them money to run campaigns because they can do things for them. Insurgents have a harder time because they cannot give favors, therefore, receive no money. The only people that vote are the ones that benefit directly or indirectly from the incumbents good will, or pork. The insurgents are never in the paper as much, nor can they afford to put out a message. Therefore, the incumbent always wins, unless the press they generate is ultimately negative. I understand how it works. I just don't think that term limits changed anything.
Have the same people been getting paid off? Yes. Are the same people benefitting from the incumbent? Yes. Are the same term limit loving folks getting screwed every day? Yes. so what has changed? A council person represents over 100,000 people and they win with 5000 votes. Until you change that dynamic, you will have the same problem.
In fact, more people complain about what councilmembers don't do than those who cheer what they do because the rate is the same - about 5 out of every 100 people know what a councilperson does and cares. The rest sit back and complain. Term limits has changed the players, but it is the same game.
People voted for term limits because for all intents and purposes, people are lazy. And, some people ran two well-funded CAMPAIGNS for term limits.
Getting rid of incumbents is not easy. The fact of the matter is, if you go member by member, I don't see a vast difference between the previous incumbents and their successors. It is the same council, with more of a sense of the expedient with BS. We get more bannings and proclamations of nothing because the current members are seeking press.
If people wanted change, I think a strong case can be made that term limits didn't bring it. I would actually make an argument that we have taken steps backward.
Let me explain to you how I see this playing out, and you can tell me if I have a profound misunderstanding...the person with the most votes win. The incumbents have an advantage because people give them money to run campaigns because they can do things for them. Insurgents have a harder time because they cannot give favors, therefore, receive no money. The only people that vote are the ones that benefit directly or indirectly from the incumbents good will, or pork. The insurgents are never in the paper as much, nor can they afford to put out a message. Therefore, the incumbent always wins, unless the press they generate is ultimately negative. I understand how it works. I just don't think that term limits changed anything.
Have the same people been getting paid off? Yes. Are the same people benefitting from the incumbent? Yes. Are the same term limit loving folks getting screwed every day? Yes. so what has changed? A council person represents over 100,000 people and they win with 5000 votes. Until you change that dynamic, you will have the same problem.
In fact, more people complain about what councilmembers don't do than those who cheer what they do because the rate is the same - about 5 out of every 100 people know what a councilperson does and cares. The rest sit back and complain. Term limits has changed the players, but it is the same game.
I know what is going on.